The move is designed to address the "chicken-and-egg" problem that adoption of 4K Ultra HD technology faces: If there's no 4K content, who's going to buy a 4K TV? And if no one is buying 4K TVs, who's going to invest the money in producing 4K content? After all, it has been years since the introduction of 1080p HDTV, and 1080p content is just now becoming ubiquitous. (Even now, many channels available in "HD" via cable or satellite are smeary, upscaled messes.)

Sony is hoping to solve the problem itself. The company makes 4K TVs and 4K cinema cameras. It also happens to own its own motion picture production and distribution company. So, consumers who plop down $25,000 for one of the largest TVs in existence will get a selection of presumably recent Sony Pictures releases in 4K format.

The exact nature of the "delivery solution" or what content is preloaded hasn't been revealed, though Hartjen said buyers can expect more details shortly after Thanksgiving. But the real question is, would a stack of free Sony movies tempt a compelling reason to buy a $25,000 TV set?

Definitely bad eyes. The difference between 720p and 1080p can get a little blurry at that distance (depending on screen size), but you should be able to tell 480p from 720p (and up). It may not be super noticable on relatively simple scenes, depending how well your set upscapes. But get into action and it becomes pretty obvious pretty fast...a proper HD source (such as a BR disc) is just pushing so many more bits that it eliminates all the macroblocking and such that you see on DVD or crappier HD sources (like most cable feeds).

Quote:

This is an excellent point. I guess I just can't fathom the level of financial indifference it would take to do so.

I can't personally understand it, but I know it exists. I've seen the $1K+ iPhone cases and such.

I was going to say that if I'm going to buy a 4K TV, it would be for PC games. Then again, the TV probably has horrible lag issues, like most modern consumer TVs overburdened with image processing BS (IE TruMotion)--in this case, even more so, considering that there's even more image data to process per-frame.

Perhaps if Sony came out with a commercial display variant at a cheaper price point I'd bite.

I was going to say that if I'm going to buy a 4K TV, it would be for PC games. Then again, the TV probably has horrible lag issues, like most modern consumer TVs overburdened with image processing BS (IE TruMotion)--in this case, even more so, considering that there's even more image data to process per-frame.

Perhaps if Sony came out with a commercial display variant at a cheaper price point I'd bite.

On nearly every modern TV, that processing can be turned off. I can't imagine this being any different. There will be some lag from the panel itself, but that'd be it.

This whole 1080/720/480p classification system really set the industry back. Sure, it gave customers a set of standards with which to compare products. But it also allowed manufacturers to sit back selling crappy products without much incentive produce higher resolution displays.

Problem I see is that when 1080p "HD" TVs came out, there were already content that took advantage of that in the PC world. Unfortunately with 4K, there's no content in the computer world that has been pushed. Without content, no one would want the TV. Even if Sony gave out free movies, that's still not enough to justify a 4K TV at any price unless they cost the same as a 1080p TV right now.

Its an interesting idea, but I would assume this content would be pushed over the internet and its going to be huge. Aren't we talking 100GB a movie?

We're talking roughly 4.55 times the pixel density of BluRay, so 100GB a movie is actually a good estimate. I'm assuming they'd provide a NAS with a few TB of storage that costs Sony about a grand. The TV should support streaming from the NAS.

I'm sure many of the studios have 4K masters locked in their vaults; (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-digita ... shtml#2012) but unless there's a standardized (and secure) way for the content owners to provide that 4K content to 4K UHDTV owners - that content will stay locked in the vaults.

And although HMDI 1.4 supports 4K content, I suspect 4K content owners will be satisfied with HDCP, given the availability of the Master Key. Perhaps HDMI 2.0 will introduce a replacement, which the Sony 84X900 will not support - rendering it a $25 PC monitor which can play back a few Sony Pictures Entertainment movies.

Its an interesting idea, but I would assume this content would be pushed over the internet and its going to be huge. Aren't we talking 100GB a movie?

We're talking roughly 4.55 times the pixel density of BluRay, so 100GB a movie is actually a good estimate. I'm assuming they'd provide a NAS with a few TB of storage that costs Sony about a grand. The TV should support streaming from the NAS.

Hopefully they would encode stuff for this in something better than what normal blu-ray disks use, to reduce the size some. It's still going to be huge though.

I just don't see a problem that this is going to fix. It's pretty much DOA in the cable/satellite space due to an existing bandwidth crunch, and I don't see people spending money en-masse to upgrade TVs yet again.

If you can afford a $25K television, I can't imagine the 4k player and movies are much of a consideration in your purchasing decision, or in the bottom line of you pocketbook when it comes to media consumption.

When many cable providers still only broadcasts in 720p, streaming content is on the rise, and data caps are in place on most residential internet connections, this approach seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Not one item I own could connect to a 4K tv and get the benefit without serious upgrades, replacements or considerable costs after I purchase the new panel.

Finally, many consumers flat out cannot tell the difference between 480, 720, and 1080 resolutions without getting so close to the screen that it makes no difference. My couch is on the other side of the room, not 6 feet from the screen. Will 4k make any difference is this situation?

I don't see this as an "chicken and egg" problem when one part of the equation is already been solved technically, just stop producing 1080p TVs and start producing 4K, 8K TVs. I am absolutely sure that continuing to produce 1080p TVs when your phone is 1080p and your tablet is 4K is going to be problematic. The chicken is already out of the bag so hopefully it will lay some egg, preferably not goose eggs since it is a CHICKEN!

Now what is all this crap with camera/camcorders with 24 Mega Pixel sensors but only able to capture 1080p video?

for a long time, 4k is going to be a niche market for RICH folks (and the medical field). But it has some value - if you are closer than say, 10 feet from the TV, you're going to start to notice the difference between 1080p and 4k.

Seriously, any early-adopters on this are just begging to be boned later on if and when 4k is actually mainstreamed.

The kind of people buying 25k 84" TVs don't care, they will just buy a better one when it comes out.

This is an excellent point. I guess I just can't fathom the level of financial indifference it would take to do so.

Well of course you can't. Once you get to that point it's hard to actually spend all the money you earn. I don't mean it's impossible of course (as athletes remind us every day) but when I can spend 25K on a tv and know I've made it back by lunch what difference does it make?

As for the content delivery, I know there's a company that is looking into having either a satellite distribution of 4K films or a physical HDD option for those willing to invest in it. I wonder if this has anything to do with that.

Problem I see is that when 1080p "HD" TVs came out, there were already content that took advantage of that in the PC world. Unfortunately with 4K, there's no content in the computer world that has been pushed. Without content, no one would want the TV. Even if Sony gave out free movies, that's still not enough to justify a 4K TV at any price unless they cost the same as a 1080p TV right now.

What is the lowest resolution of that camera in your phone much less your actual camera that you are willing to buy? 8 Mega Pixels? There is content for you!

4k is the future. People said the same thing about 1080p. People got bigger screens. Ever had a big screen with old TV signals - it sucks.

This will allow bigger screens with very very vibrant high resolution. They sales numbers make the cost high while they work out the bugs on how to manufacture. But once this is done, the prices will be halved in 6 months repeatedly. In 5 years this will be the standard and ubiquitous, there is so much content out there for this. Most movies are made to 4k...so nearly all movies. Content delivery is going to be through the internet. BR is something that will be around but typical use will be through the internet, cheapest and most flexible system.

This whole 1080/720/480p classification system really set the industry back. Sure, it gave customers a set of standards with which to compare products. But it also allowed manufacturers to sit back selling crappy products without much incentive produce higher resolution displays.

Calling 42" screen with 1920x1080 resolution "Full HD" is a joke.

So you don't think that they will be selling 42" 4K TVs? Because I do.

How the heck would you handle content delivery on this? If it's 100 gb/movie (which sounds like a reasonable estimate) that rules out streaming for most people (even if your bandwidth caps allow it, streaming 100 gigs would take ages). It rules out optical media unless you want to change disc during the movie. Only thing I can think of is shoving movies on hard drives? It's even too big for any SD card I've seen in the consumer space.

Really stupid idea here: What if the delivery system was a take on Netflix, in that the media was sent to the customer on a flash drive? Yeah, it would be expensive, but as many posters have pointed out, if you can afford $25k for a TV, paying $100 per pop for a movie wouldn't be out of the question. As media prices became more reasonable and more Google-esque fiber networks were extended, the delivery systems would become cheaper (hopefully) dropping the prices for the movies down.

I'm sure many of the studios have 4K masters locked in their vaults; (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-digita ... shtml#2012) but unless there's a standardized (and secure) way for the content owners to provide that 4K content to 4K UHDTV owners - that content will stay locked in the vaults.

And although HMDI 1.4 supports 4K content, I suspect 4K content owners will be satisfied with HDCP, given the availability of the Master Key. Perhaps HDMI 2.0 will introduce a replacement, which the Sony 84X900 will not support - rendering it a $25 PC monitor which can play back a few Sony Pictures Entertainment movies.

All those 70mm films and IMAX films and even 35mm films can easily be scanned to 4K and I am being very conservative giving just 4800 DPI(PPI) scanning resolution.

4k sounds great but it's going to require a MAJOR breakthrough in content delivery bandwidth. In the past there was a reasonable value proposition in physical disks, but now that people are used to streaming content, they're not likely to go back to walking over to the store to rent a movie. Especially not if it means they have to pay 67 times as much for it.

When people have access to 100MB/s internet, it's only 17 minutes for a 100GB video. Kind of what we have today for our modest internet of 5-15MB/s. See what is possible with high speed internet. If people have 600MB/s Google fiber, what like 3 minutes?

4K theaters get their programs shipped on hard disks; I imagine Sony will provide a consumer friendly version of that system. They've also more or less got the media playback device problem solved with PS3 technology. No great mystery here, methinks... Start the discussion with "just send 'em a PS3 with a 1TB HD" and refine from there.

When people have access to 100MB/s internet, it's only 17 minutes for a 100GB video. Kind of what we have today for our modest internet of 5-15MB/s. See what is possible with high speed internet. If people have 600MB/s Google fiber, what like 3 minutes?

It is totally within reason. 5 years and ubiquitous.

Careful with your 'B's there. Did you mean 600 megabyte per second google fiber, or 600 megabit per second? I'm pretty sure there is no consumer Internet anywhere in the world capable of 600 megabytes per second, and I'm not optimistic that we'll have that in five years either. Google fiber is closer to 600 megabits per second.